<p>I certainly agree that EA is better than ED. And I also agree that for those who are savvy enough to use it and are successful, early admissions can be a real positive. (My son was admitted early to his first choice school and it made his senior year of high school much more enjoyable.) But statistically speaking, there is just no question that early application pools, whether they’re EA or ED, are heavily weighted towards the advantaged. And high school guidance counselors across the country applauded when Harvard and Princeton (and UVA) took the lead in eliminating their early admissions (unfortunately, they led, but no one else followed). </p>
<p>I think the real test for Yale, given that they seem not to have captured a yield advantage this year by keeping EA, will be whether there’s been any impact on their ability to build a diverse class. If they’ve been hurt in this area, I think they’ll seriously consider eliminating EA for next year. If not, they’ll probably continue to hold out and see if they can get a yield advantage next year. The problem is that Harvard and Princeton have made clear that if no one else follows them, and if it turns out that their admissions are hurt by not having EA, they will reinstate it. Which would be a shame in my view.</p>
<p>P.S., an interesting (and relevant) quote in this article from the head of admissions at Harvard:</p>
<p>[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: 200 Taken Off Waitlist](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523551]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523551)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously Harvard and Princeton had the courage of their convictions that eliminating early admissions was the right thing to do, as it is clearly not the self-interested thing to do.</p>